ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
A cluster randomised trial of digital messaging nudges to improve influenza vaccination uptake in China.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As an effective strategy for preventing influenza, vaccination uptake remains suboptimal. This cluster randomised trial evaluated digital messaging nudges on influenza vaccination among children aged 6-35 months and their parents in China. During 2024-25 flu season, 36 community health centres were randomly assigned to one of six arms by message framing (gain vs. loss) and evidence type (statistical vs. narrative), and standard message and no-message control, with 2,011 parents of age-eligible children enroled. For childhood vaccination, loss-framed narrative arm achieved the highest uptake (24.0% vs. control 9.4%; adjusted RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.27-4.94), and effects sustained at five-month follow-up. Loss-framed statistical arm (16.9% vaccination uptake) was significantly effective only at one-month follow-up (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.50-4.99), with effects attenuating rapidly. Both standard and gain-framed messages had no significant effect on childhood vaccination. Loss-framed narrative digital nudges offer a scalable strategy to improve childhood vaccination. Clinical trial registration: ChiCTR2400092213.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.